Forrest Gump had it right

[smccray]

I was exactly there 2 years ago and I wouldn't even think for second about departing into those conditions and letting shit deteriorate to that point. Yes, before my IFR and TKS, I did a lot of scud running at 1000agl, but never with a ceiling of less than 2000, always on a carefully chosen route, usually airways and still I've landed short quite a few times. Even after I got my IFR, I've cancelled quite a few flights even when others would launch with no problems because they were below my minimums which to this day, with 400 hours and about 40 of actual are 600/2 and day time. I do 200/1 for practice, but only at my home airport and only with a second IFR rate pilot on board. Idiots like this fellow is exactly why the insurance rates what they are.

 

I never would have departed in those conditions.  I don't fly in marginal VFR.  Period.  No more questions. 

 

2 months ago I could have probably done a scud run in quickly improving marginal VFR with forecast VFR conditions 2 hours later for the return.  I was tempted, but bright lines and enforcing personal minimums are established for exactly that situation- to keep temptation at bay.  I wouldn't launch into those conditions solo.  The fact that someone would allow themselves to even get into that position is completely unacceptable.  Taking passengers who don't have the perspective to understand the risk- that's beyond just unacceptable.  I don't even know what to call it.

 

Over Christmas, my father said my decision making about the airplane was like a little old lady (in a good way).  Damn right.  I moved up to a complex airplane with 80 hours, and while many people said it was doable, many others cautioned me about the decision.  I have to assume those people who have been there and have the experience have a good reason to caution me, even if I can't fully appreciate it.  I've gotten behind the airplane before, and I'm sure I will again despite making every effort to stay ahead of the plane.  Add in the stress, at my current experience level, of deteriorating weather with 3 passengers (including one's own children), it's a lot to handle.  I need to get my IFR finished, but I'd think twice about making that flight right after completing an instrument rating- loved ones in the plane and bad weather with the stress to get there and get home sounds like a contributing factor in an NTSB report.

 

If you've never read the killing zone it's an eye opener.  200-600 total time is the greatest frequency of accidents.  I try not to analyze too much, but I also try not to get complacent having just crossed 200 hrs.

[omega708]

I was at an AOPA safety seminar last night in San Antonio. The presenter brought up several examples of CFIT. It was eye opening to say the least.

 

DF

 

I would really like to attend some of those seminars but have trouble traveling to downtown Austin (and back) on a Wednesday evening... 

[AndyFromCB]

I have always found the so called scud running in the midwest to be as safe as anything else (sometimes safer than IFR in the summer with potential for embedded thunderstorms or winter with icing potential), with proper planning and 100% commitment to do a 180 at the first sign of deteriorating conditions. My conditions have always been a ceiling of 2000, being able to stay 1000AGL and sticking to a preplanned route at all cost, a route that was analyzed for obstacle clearance and terrain which usually meant sticking on an airway.

Not a big fan in the mountains, but sometimes required to land at Alpine, WY by first shooting an approach into Afton and then following the highway. Once again, need a 2000 ceiling.

 

To me a 2000 foot ceiling is not an issue as long as visiblity is there. The second visibility or clouds drop, I find a place to land.

[1964-M20E]

Was this a bad decision I think so. He had many opportunities for an out first and fore most ask for help and accept that help. Assuming the AP was working another big source of help. Unfortunately the lawyers and liability limit to some degree what ATC can tell us to do in the air. They can ask us if we want something or ask our intentions they can in some cases make suggestions but they are not in the plane and not PIC. I think ATC did virtually everything they could to help this guy out. We have the luxury of sitting here two years later with plenty of time and information and investigations that have been performed to pick apart the PICs decisions. I’m not defending him for his actions because he did have options but we were not there. We can learn a lot from him though. Through my 26 year career of flying I can remember several cases where I was in situations that could have gotten real ugly real quick and weather I was on the ground getting ready to launch or in the air looking to get down you mind will do crazy things to rationalize the situation you are in. Sometimes you need to stop and think and not listen to some of the things your mind is telling you. However, once you are in the air the old saying “aviate, navigate, and communicate” is the most important thing you can do because “if I’m flying I’m not dying”. If it takes 98% of your attention to keep the plane straight and level do it then worry about where you are and then talk to ATC. Ultimately ATC will clear a path for you deal with the VFR in IMC issues later. Finally altitude and airspeed are your friends. With plenty of both you are in a good situation.

[fantom]

Aside from the self righteous indignation, no one is immune to stupid pilot tricks once in a while, no one. If nobody sees you, and you get away with it, which most times is the case, it tends to embolden you.

 

We have to always discipline ourselves against complacency, or there but for the grace of God go you and I.

 

Aside from the self righteous indignation, no one is immune to stupid pilot tricks once in a while, no one. If nobody sees you, and you get away with it, which most times is the case, it tends to embolden you.

 

We have to always discipline ourselves against complacency, or there but for the grace of God go you and I.

[Mcstealth]

I would really like to attend some of those seminars but have trouble traveling to downtown Austin (and back) on a Wednesday evening... 

 

Omega, the seminar was fine, with really good attendance.

 

I need the interaction to learn effectively, so it was helpful to me. Some people can learn with no interaction and I bet they would find define the seminar as time spent, but not neccessarily well spent.

 

My observations.

David

[smccray]

Aside from the self righteous indignation, no one is immune to stupid pilot tricks once in a while, no one. If nobody sees you, and you get away with it, which most times is the case, it tends to embolden you.

 

We have to always discipline ourselves against complacency, or there but for the grace of God go you and I.

 

You're right- my posts this morning certainly comes off as self righteous and that's certainly not my intent.  They were more of an emotional reaction to the though of me doing something like this myself and thinking about the impact on my family.  This hit a little close to home.  Sorry if it came off the wrong way.

 

I've had a couple of those never again moments; I'm the last guy to throw stones.  That said I'll always be my own worst critic.  I agree that we should always discipline ourselves, but I would suggest that we take it a step further- we should recognize each others failures as failures and call them as we see them.  It's no doubt possible to do that with a little more tact than I exhibited above.

[AndyFromCB]

I've done my share of stupid pilot tricks...

[Oscar Avalle]

I've done my share of stupid pilot tricks...

 

I too...

[FloridaMan]

Sounds like he got a serious case of the leans there at the end and let himself get overloaded. It's only happened to me once so far, but that feeling of being in a steep spiral to the left when all your instruments show straight and level requires a willful defiance of one's senses to ignore. 

 

Also sounds like he may have never shot an instrument approach in spite of his claimed training. I kept asking myself why the controllers didn't take over and give him a vectored approach and take the decision making out of his hands when he expressed interest in landing at the airport with higher ceilings. 

[OR75]

 I kept asking myself why the controllers didn't take over and give him a vectored approach and take the decision making out of his hands when he expressed interest in landing at the airport with higher ceilings. 

 

For a very simple reason: the "command" (and liability) would have shifted to the controller. The result could have been a happy one. If not, some would have reported that a controller send a pilot to the ground.   

 

Sad, but that's the world we live in.  A few want to cash in, but most end up paying.   

[sreid]

For a very simple reason: the "command" (and liability) would have shifted to the controller. The result could have been a happy one. If not, some would have reported that a controller send a pilot to the ground.   

 

Sad, but that's the world we live in.  A few want to cash in, but most end up paying.   

Without regard to liability, I wouldn't ever want someone else, particularly ATC, deciding if I needed help and "taking over". I want the freedom and responsibility of determining what is too dangerous for myself and taking action as I see fit. Flying is one of the few remaining activities where we retain most of our freedoms from authorities making these kind of decisions for us. If we give ATC the authority to decide when to "take the decision making out of our hands", where do you bound it? What if they think the crosswind is too strong and deny takeoff clearance? No thanks, I'll make my own decisions and deal with the consequences myself, good or bad.

[sreid]

You know the pilot had no idea when he said "if we're going to be available for landing". I'm very surprised chicago didn't declare emergency for him. I also want to know how exactly one kills themselves having two giant screens in front of them. I can see freaking out with just an AI but essentially he had TV in from of him. I'm going to sound like the a-hole that I am, but oh well, Darwin wins every time. Plus on top of everything the idiot had a parachute.

 

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who panic and those who don't. The former should stay at home and play video games, and latter, with careful consideration should be allowed to venture every know and then. People like him just piss me off. If I had a dollar for every time I landed short of destination, departed late or not at all or argued with a controller about altitude, I would be a wealthy man.

Can't say I particularly like where you're going with this. Yes some people would be better suited to a different hobby because they don't have a temperament or personality that is good at making life critical decisions in real time at a fast pace. But in America we have the freedom to spend our money and time how we want. We don't "allow" people to travel in their own airplanes on their own schedule, they have the freedom and right to do that as they please. They can decide on their own what activities they want to do. I personally want to be able to decide if I play video games, fly, or do any other activity. In turn I don't want to tell anyone else what they can or can't do. I don't want you "allowing" me to do something any more than yo want me "allowing" you.

Steve

[Marauder]

Can't say I particularly like where you're going with this. Yes some people would be better suited to a different hobby because they don't have a temperament or personality that is good at making life critical decisions in real time at a fast pace. But in America we have the freedom to spend our money and time how we want. We don't "allow" people to travel in their own airplanes on their own schedule, they have the freedom and right to do that as they please. They can decide on their own what activities they want to do. I personally want to be able to decide if I play video games, fly, or do any other activity. In turn I don't want to tell anyone else what they can or can't do. I don't want you "allowing" me to do something any more than yo want me "allowing" you.

Steve

 

Unfortunately, that is not how our society functions. If something becomes enough of a visible problem, we get "help". When most of us were growing up, drinking and driving was viewed considerably different than it is today. Heck, I can remember a cop following me home one night after he stopped me for a speeding ticket. He wanted to make sure I made it home okay. I was drunk as a skunk. After enough visibility was paid on drunk driving, we got "help".

 

With the recent shootings, there is now increased momentum to get us gun owners "help".

 

Not knowing this pilot, he could have been a safe pilot who made a mistake and paid for it or he could be one those pilots who is brazen and arrogant and thought he could get away with it (again).

 

Whether or not anyone could have influenced the chain of events immediately before the accident, who is to say. But if he was one of those pilots who was brazen, I'm willing to bet there were indicators way before he got into that plane for it's last flight.

 

We owe it to ourselves to self regulate when we can, otherwise we will get "help". Lord knows I am getting enough "help" with my medical...

[201er]

But if he was one of those pilots who was brazen, I'm willing to bet there were indicators way before he got into that plane for it's last flight.

Oh like buying a Cirrus fresh out of flight school?

[Hank]

Oh like buying a Cirrus fresh out of flight school?

 

You aren't implying that purchasing my Mooney six whole weeks after my PPL checkride was an "indicator" that I'm a brazen, careless pilot? Don't worry, I'll never go to NYC to convince you otherwise. I agree with Hank Jr. about NYC.

[sreid]

Oh like buying a Cirrus fresh out of flight school?

That's a dangerous brazen thing to do? Come on! I wish we had a lot more people capable and inclined to be buying new airplanes. A Cirrus is not a particularly hard airplane to fly. The attitude and responsibility of the pilot is the important thing, not the number of days elapsed since your certificate was signed.

[sreid]

Unfortunately, that is not how our society functions. If something becomes enough of a visible problem, we get "help". When most of us were growing up, drinking and driving was viewed considerably different than it is today. Heck, I can remember a cop following me home one night after he stopped me for a speeding ticket. He wanted to make sure I made it home okay. I was drunk as a skunk. After enough visibility was paid on drunk driving, we got "help".

 

With the recent shootings, there is now increased momentum to get us gun owners "help".

 

Not knowing this pilot, he could have been a safe pilot who made a mistake and paid for it or he could be one those pilots who is brazen and arrogant and thought he could get away with it (again).

 

Whether or not anyone could have influenced the chain of events immediately before the accident, who is to say. But if he was one of those pilots who was brazen, I'm willing to bet there were indicators way before he got into that plane for it's last flight.

 

We owe it to ourselves to self regulate when we can, otherwise we will get "help". Lord knows I am getting enough "help" with my medical...

Agree that we need to self regulate our personal behaviors. There is already a big incentive to not do behaviors that are too risky: crashing and burning.

[fantom]

As Forrest's mama said, and as the title of this thread suggests, "Stupid is as stupid does."

[Marauder]

Oh like buying a Cirrus fresh out of flight school?

Or buying a sports car that they can't handle (Pelle Lindbergh, Tim Horton, Jerome Brown to name a few). Unlike those sports figures, he should have had both a complex checkout and most likely an insurance requirement for experience that needed to be met. He got by those, didn't he?

[Marauder]

You aren't implying that purchasing my Mooney six whole weeks after my PPL checkride was an "indicator" that I'm a brazen, careless pilot? Don't worry, I'll never go to NYC to convince you otherwise. I agree with Hank Jr. about NYC.

That's EXACTLY what he is saying Hank! That lightning fast Mooney is just way too much airplane for you big guy!

[Marauder]

Agree that we need to self regulate our personal behaviors. There is already a big incentive to not do behaviors that are too risky: crashing and burning.

 

And that in part is the problem. Some of these folks don't have that fear gene...

[201er]

Or buying a sports car that they can't handle (Pelle Lindbergh, Tim Horton, Jerome Brown to name a few). Unlike those sports figures, he should have had both a complex checkout and most likely an insurance requirement for experience that needed to be met. He got by those, didn't he?

How could any rule or law have stopped him? 91.155, 91.13, and 91.129, were already broken during the flight to name a few. Most of the videos/discussions start with the pilot being over the airport in the clouds. But if we rewind back a little, there was a point at which he made the conscious choice to enter them and continue flying in them. He was very very far behind the airplane (and quite likely wasn't even adequately familiar with available systems). If he waited a few hundred more hours and built experience flying local in a skyhawk and continuing his education, he would have at least known how to talk to the tower, seek help, and been less distracted with the mechanics of flying and been able to dedicate more attention to the EMERGENCY and treated it as one rather than brushing it off as "not wanting to get stuck."

[Hank]

How could any rule or law have stopped him? 91.155, 91.13, and 91.129, were already broken during the flight to name a few. Most of the videos/discussions start with the pilot being over the airport in the clouds. But if we rewind back a little, there was a point at which he made the conscious choice to enter them and continue flying in them. He was very very far behind the airplane (and quite likely wasn't even adequately familiar with available systems). If he waited a few hundred more hours and built experience flying local in a skyhawk and continuing his education, he would have at least known how to talk to the tower, seek help, and been less distracted with the mechanics of flying and been able to dedicate more attention to the EMERGENCY and treated it as one rather than brushing it off as "not wanting to get stuck."

 

I did this [bolded above] in my Mooney. Rolled over 100 hours total enroute to a MAPA PPP, after transition training, complex endorsement, insurance dual and a couple of 300-nm XC trips. What matters is not that I was doing that in a Mooney, a Cirrus or a Skyhawk; I see no benefit to "flying local in a Skyhawk" vs. flying XC in my Mooney. It's all about the individual, his own competency and attention to detail. Some people have gone straight into Turbo Mooneys at the same level that I bought my C; some folks are over their heads in a 152.

 

Legislating "rules" based on the lowest common denominator does not promote safety. Requiring everyone to get "a few hundred hours flying local in a Skyhawk" will not make safer XC pilots flying complex, HP aircraft. It will, however, reduce the pilot population significantly. It would definitely have run me off as soon as I found out about it.

 

Some people obey rules; some people make a habit of disobeying rules; some people want to do things their own way. All of us make mistakes sometimes. It becomes an issue when personal decisions to flaunt the rules, whether VFR into IMC, IFR into icing, or driving too fast on the highway, causes problems/loss for other people. Fly VFR into IMC if you want to, and if your estate can handle the loss of the aircraft, but don't do it with passengers and don't damage anything on the ground. Too many knee-jerk liberals want to prevent anyone from doing the same, making it more difficult for me to make legal IFR flights or purchase insurance for my aircraft.

 

Some of it comes down to flight instructors not embedding respect for the rules into students; some is the fault of the FAA for promulgating too many rules that cannot be enforced, causing disrespect for all of them; part of it is squarely on the person who decides that a particular rule or group of rules can be ignored, and that cannot be legislated away.

 

Since I graduated from college in the mid-80's, it seems that personal responsibility has disappeared on the part of people doing things, and accidents have disappeared on the part of people to whom things happen. Sure, it's a conflict, but I didn't set out to kill us both, it just happened because the airplane crashed not because I flew when I shouldn't have. The engine quit in the clouds because the air intake iced over, not because I shouldn't have been there, but due to such a poor design on the part of the aircraft manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the propellor that spun the icy air into the intake, ATC who didn't vector me away, and the FAA who certified such poor designs.

[Marauder]

Or buying a sports car that they can't handle (Pelle Lindbergh, Tim Horton, Jerome Brown to name a few). Unlike those sports figures, he should have had both a complex checkout and most likely an insurance requirement for experience that needed to be met. He got by those, didn't he? How could any rule or law have stopped him? 91.155, 91.13, and 91.129, were already broken during the flight to name a few. Most of the videos/discussions start with the pilot being over the airport in the clouds. But if we rewind back a little, there was a point at which he made the conscious choice to enter them and continue flying in them. He was very very far behind the airplane (and quite likely wasn't even adequately familiar with available systems). If he waited a few hundred more hours and built experience flying local in a skyhawk and continuing his education, he would have at least known how to talk to the tower, seek help, and been less distracted with the mechanics of flying and been able to dedicate more attention to the EMERGENCY and treated it as one rather than brushing it off as "not wanting to get stuck."

You're missing my point Mike. No rules could have stopped this pilot from doing this flight. He made a conscious decision to fly it. My question is if he was one of those brazen pilots, who was going to stop him? His conscious? Obviously not, he took 3 with him. Like I said earlier, I didn't know this pilot. He may have made a bad decision and paid for it with his life and those with him. Bad decision and not one he could live and learn from. Was he a brazen pilot who took risks? Don't know. But if he was, he took the ultimate risk that killed him and his passengers. My point on this topic is that if he was a risk taker, the only people who could have stopped him was himself or others who saw how he managed risks. If you are an unsafe pilot, I'm going to let you know that. And I would expect you to the same for me. If he was a risk taker, did those who knew him ever say anything to him? You can't regulate stupidity... But you can certainly point it out!